OROP: Will it be another game?

Cabinet Secretariat 13 July 2012
Govt constitutes Committee to look into pay and pension related issues of defence services personnel and ex-servicemen
The Government has decided to constitute a Committee, under the chairpersonship of Cabinet Secretary, to look into pay and pension related issues of relevance to defence services personnel and ex-servicemen. The other members of the Committee will be:
(i) Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister
(ii) Defence Secretary
(iii) Secretary, D/o Expenditure
(iv) Secretary, D/o Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare
(v) Secretary, D/o Personnel and Training
The Committee’s ‘terms of reference’ will be to look into the following issues relating to:
(i) Defence services personnel:
• Common pay-scale for in-service JCOs/ORs
• Initial pay-fixation of Lt. Col/Colonel and Brigadier/equivalent
• Review and enhancement of grade pay
• Placing of all Lts General in HAG+ scale
• Grant of non-functional upgradation (NFU) to armed forces personnel
(ii) Ex-servicemen:
• One-rank one-pension
• Enhancement of family pension
• Dual family pension
• Family pension to mentally/physically challenged children of armed forces personnel on marriage
The Department of Expenditure will service the Committee. The Committee may co-opt any other member. The Committee will finalize its recommendations and submit its report to the Prime Minister by 8th August, 2012.
***SC/LM (Release ID :85337)
Cabinet Committee for pay and pension of defence personnel

Lethargy of MEA leads to gruesome killing of wife and children

Ex-army officer kills wife, 2 children; commits suicide in US
Naseer Ganai | Mail Today | Srinagar, June 10, 2012 | UPDATED 18:39 IST
Major (retired) Avtar Singh, who killed his two children and wife before killing himself in US on Sunday, was wanted in a Kashmir court in the custodial killing case of Jaleel Andrabi, a human rights activist.
The mass murder and suicide by the retired Army major has shocked Andrabi family here. "It is shocking that he killed his family. Had he been extradited and brought for the trial, the situation could have different today. The responsibility of this incident lies with the government of India and the US government, which delayed his extradition," said advocate Arshid Andrabi, Jaleel Andrabi's brother.
Singh was accused of kidnapping and later killing Andrabi, a prominent Kashmiri human rights lawyer and human rights activist, in 1996. Major Singh, who was then with the 35th Rashtriya Rifles unit of the Army, had allegedly detained Andrabi on March 8, 1996.
After his detention, Andrabi's wife was repeatedly told by senior police officials that Andrabi was in custody and would be released. Three weeks later, Andrabi's body was found floating in the Jhelum river. His autopsy showed that he had been killed days after his arrest.
The killing evoked widespread condemnation across the Valley. Human rights activists, political parties and the Kashmir Bar Association demanded the arrest of Major Singh.
Arshid, Andrabi's brother, took the matter before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which, in April 1997, ordered the Kashmir Police to apprehend Major Singh and impound his passport.
The court also directed that his photographs should be displayed on electronic media.
"In 2000, a police team headed by a superintendent of police went to Karnal in Haryana, where Major Singh was posted in a regiment of the Territorial Army. Despite being armed with high court's orders, the police team failed to arrest him. He was wanted in five other cases of custodial killings and still the J&K police let him off," said Arshid.
In December 26, 2000, the police filed a chargesheet in the case without producing the accused. "It is unheard in the history of criminal law that a chargesheet is filed without producing the accused," said Arshid.
Subsequently, when the matter was again brought before the High Court, it directed the trial court to ensure the presence of the accused. Since then the trial court of chief judicial magistrate Srinagar issued several warrants against the accused major, but to no avail.
"At the same time the Union government facilitated Major Singh to obtain travel documents like passport and allowed him to cross immigration in blatant violation of the court orders," Arshid alleged.
In December 2009, United States Interpol-National Central Bureau, Washington, while confirming the presence of the accused in California, had sought "formal request for his provisional arrest and extradition."
A red-corner notice through Interpol stands issued against him.
"But the ministry of external affairs used delayed tactics and did not send a formal request to the US government," claimed Arshid.
He said the case is not closed. "In the police chargesheet there are five other accused along with Major Singh. We will move revision application before the court to make them party in the case," he said.
Earlier application to make them accused in the case was dismissed by the CJM.
Major Singh's first wife was from Kashmir and belonged to Jawaharnagar area of Srinagar. According to reports, she still lives in New Delhi.
In February 2011, Singh was reportedly arrested by the California police on charges of domestic violence including throwing a toy on his wife. After his arrest, police discovered Singh was wanted by Interpol. Yet, he was released.
Read more at: Click here
Related reading
Ex-army officer kills wife, 2 children; commits suicide in US
Comment: Speaks poorly of Indian legal system and the Indian Military. The MEA is headed by a band of tainted ministers and bureaucrats.. one cannot expect more... regret the loss of lives.

Soldiers Defrauded of Rank Pay: Present Status

IV Pay Commission Rank Pay Anomaly Case
In the case of Maj AK Dhanapalan Vs Union of India in OP 2448/96, The Hon’ble High Court of Kerela allowed the plea of the officer and held that the deduction of the rank pay was not correct and directed to re fix the basic pay of the officer from 1.1.1986. Appeal filed by the Union of India before the larger bench of the High Court & SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment was dismissed. Although Govt sanction to pay arrears to Maj AK Dhanapalan were issued, the benefit was not extended to similarly placed officers of the three Services.
Similar cases were filed by a large number of officers in various courts throughout the country. The Supreme Court of India directed that such of the cases be transferred to the apex court. Retired Defence Officers Association (RDOA) has been able to transfer one of the ‘lead cases’ from Kerela to the Supreme Court.
AS ON 22 Mar 2012
GOOGLY BY COURT!? Further to post of 21 Mar 2012 on the ibid case. The Court No 8 did not 'SIT' today ie 22 Mar 2012. In all probability another date will be given which will be posted on the blog once known. In the meantime u can start counting ur pennies @6% interest.
'But patience to prevent the murmur soon replies' John Milton
AS ON 21 Mar 2012
The case was listed at item no 7 in court no 8 in the apex court for 21 Mar 2012. Item no 1 took the complete day and finished at 1530hrs. Item no 2 case took two weeks adjournment.Some discussion took place on case at item no 3 and then the case was adjourned for three weeks. Remaining cases have been rescheduled for 22 Mar 2012. We are hopeful the case will be heard on 22 Mar 12.
Click here to read the genesis of the fraud and how soldiers remain cheated of the Rank Pay from 1986

President Pratibha Patil's foreign trips cost record Rs. 205 cr
New Delhi: President Pratibha Patil's foreign travel has cost the public exchequer a whopping Rs. 205 crore on her foreign visits, surpassing the record of all her predecessors.
Read more at: click here
Comment: The Government instead of punishing the culprits for perpetuating this fraud on Soldiers has amply rewarded them for savings accrued on the exchequer. The soldiers till date remain cheated of their Rank Pay entitlements. President Pratiba Patil's wasteful travel extravagza could have paid for the Rank Pay of soldiers.

Indian Justice System moves at snails pace if not standstill

Khurshid admits justice delivery slow- DD News 14 Dec 2011
Admitting that the justice delivery system in the country was slow, Government on Tuesday said efforts were on to ensure matters are decided in courts within three to five years.
"I cannot comment on legal system procedures and rule of law," Law Minister Salman Khurshid said when asked about the delay in Afzal Guru case.
However, he said, "we are not entirely happy with the pace at which the rule of law is implemented in our country and that is a reason why we have a mission for justice delivery".
Speaking to reporters outside Parliament House, he said, "The Chief Justice has spoken of this and my predecessor has spoken of it and we are moving ahead with the mission and an enormous amount of effort has to be put in to ensure that matters are decided in courts within three to five years and nothing should go beyond five years".
"However," he said, "there are still some cases which go beyond five years. We want quick justice in all matters. This (Parliament attack) is of course a symbolic and significant event that we cannot easily forget but nevertheless even for such an event there is not much one can do except to hope that our entire system learns to respond in a much faster manner," he added.
On the question of inclusion of citizen's grievances Bill in the Lokpal Bill, Khurshid said "Cabinet will consider it."
Asked about the government's views on keeping lower bureaucracy and the Prime Minister under Lokpal, he said "wait for the Bill you will know."
Whether government still wants to go ahead with the food security Bill in the backdrop of falling rupee rate and slide in industrial output, he said government is committed to do it.
"Can government afford to go people hungry. Therefore, whatever else we have to do we have to ensure that people of the country particularly marginalised people get the protection they need and dignity they need, we will do whatever in our capacity to do that," he said. (SP-13/12)
Khurshid admits justice delivery slow

Will the Bureaucrats improve or impede the Justice Delivery system?

National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms
The Governing Council would facilitate implementation, give policy directions and oversee the work of the Mission and would be headed by the Minister for Law and Justice.
· The Secretary, Department of Justice would be the National Mission Leader.
· A Mission Directorate would be constituted to implement and monitor the various initiative / programme of the National Mission. It would be headed by an officer of the rank of the Joint Secretary who would act as the Mission Director.
· A tentative Action Plan has been drawn up which would of course be subjected to change once the Advisory Council meets to set out the agenda.
Read more Click link: National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms

Comments
Laudable goals. Will a bureaucratic set up change or reduce delay in Justice delivery sytem for the common citizens? The legal tangle is a cobweb enacted for delays and culprits prey on conviction till litigant's or criminal's death occurs and white collar offenders hardly get to see the prison walls. Veterans are taken for a drive by Justice delivery system- The Rank Pay unpaid to the Military Officers by the 4th Pay Commission is one stellar case doing the rounds for almost two decades. One in his lifetime cannot hope to see any discernable promptitude, be it prosecution or seeking Justice.

Lt Gen's move AFT against Defence Secretary

Seek criminal contempt proceedings against him for defying Tribunal orders
New Delhi, August 31, 2011
Two serving Lieutenant Generals have approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) seeking criminal contempt proceedings against the Defence Secretary, accusing him of “open defiance” of the Tribunal's orders.

In their pleas, Lt Generals J S Bajwa and P G Kamath have urged the AFT for initiating “appropriate criminal contempt proceedings against the named contemners as well as their subordinate officers who are responsible for open defiance of order dated June 2 passed by the Tribunal.”

In the order passed on June 2, the Tribunal had asked the government to keep one vacancy each of Corps Commander vacant for the two officers but the respondents did not do so, said S S Pandey, counsel for the two officers.

In the petitions, the officers have asked the Tribunal to “safeguard the dignity, efficacy and the authority of the Tribunal, and to give a clear message to the respondents/ contemners for such open defiance of the order by challenging the authority of this Tribunal.” This alleged act “needs to be viewed seriously,” they pleaded.

The two officers have named Defence Secretary Shashikant Sharma as the main respondent in the case.

Bajwa and Kamath had filed a case before the Tribunal for being appointed as Corps Commanders, for which they were cleared by an Army selection board but were not given the charge as they did not have the required residual three years of service.

The officers had contended that three other Lt General-rank officers, including Lt Gen Chetinder Singh, N K Singh and present 15 Corps Commander Lt Gen S A Hasnain, also did not have three years of residual service but were given Corps Commander appointments by the government.

Bajwa is at present the Chief of Staff at the Kolkata-based Eastern Command and Kamath is holding the same office at the Central Command in Lucknow. — PTI
Lt Generals move AFT against Defence Secretary

Armed Forces Tribunal Orders are mostly defied

On record
Half the tribunal’s orders are being defied
The Tribune 10 July 2011 by Vijay Mohan

Justice Ghanshyam Prasad
THE Armed Forces Tribunal has been in existence for over two years. An agency dedicated to deal with military related issues, it expedited the judicial process that earlier used to take years to settle due to the huge pendency of cases before various high courts. The inclusion of a retired armed forces’ officer on the bench also helped in dealing with technical issues unique to the services.

While the tribunal has been a boon, specially the veterans who are now able to get their pension related grievances resolved faster, several issues remain to be sorted out. Justice Ghanshyam Prasad, the senior judicial member of the Tribunal’s Chandigarh bench speaks on some of the more contentious issues.

What are the major challenges affecting the functioning of the Tribunal?
A major obstacle is that the Tribunal does not have the powers to initiate civil contempt proceedings in case of non-compliance of its orders. This is unlike the High Courts, where a party can be hauled up for non-compliance. This does have an impact on the Tribunal’s effectiveness. In more than 50 per cent of the cases, the orders and directions passed by the benches are not executed by the authorities concerned, requiring repeated follow-up action. On an average our bench is receiving 10-12 applications every month seeking redressal for non-compliance of orders alone.

So, what is being done to redress this issue?
The government is taking steps to incorporate certain amendments in the Armed Forces Tribunal Act that will equip the tribunals with powers to issue civil contempt. This is consequent to a case that went up to the Supreme Court, where the issue cropped up during the proceedings. We would then be able to initiate the requisite action against erring authorities. At present, the tribunals’ powers of contempt are limited to criminal contempt where we can only initiate action in case of a person disrupting court proceedings or creating a nuisance.

There is an accusation that different members of the same bench have given varying judgements on similar matters involving common points of law.

Is there any justification?
These are judicial matters. We cannot call varying orders as conflict of judgement. Though they may appear similar on the face of it, all cases have different facts and circumstances behind them and the reasons for arriving at a conclusion can be different. All members could be correct in interpreting and adjudicating a respective case.

The AFT Act says that appeals against the Tribunal’s orders would lie before the Supreme Court, but the Delhi and the Kerela High Courts have recently ruled that high courts have the powers to review orders passed by the Tribunal.

How does this affect the Tribunal’s functioning?
The Tribunal’s functioning, per se, would not be affected, as it has no direct bearing on the role and powers of the Tribunal. The impact of the High Courts’ orders would be borne by the parties concerned only after the Tribunal has passed its orders. It has added another forum between the Tribunal and the Supreme Court and would now further lengthen the judicial process. The Tribunal was established to expedite the judicial process for armed forces personnel, but now things could go back to square one. It is the poor soldiers who would suffer.

Are there any plans to expand the Tribunal?
The Chandigarh Bench covers the states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. This area has a large number of serving and retired armed forces personnel and keeping in view the number of cases filed daily, we need four benches in Chandigarh as against the two at present. Besides pending cases, we are getting about 200 fresh cases every month. There are also reports of the government contemplating setting up a separate bench for Jammu and Kashmir as it is very difficult for people from that area to travel all the way to Chandigarh , file cases and attend proceedings. Then we have recently started a circuit bench at Shimla, where a bench from Chandigarh holds court for a few days there according to a pre-defined roster. This is taking justice to the doorsteps of veterans and is of great help to those residing in Himachal Pradesh as it does away with the need to travel long distances and arranging accommodation for overnight stay. There is certainly scope for more circuit benches.

Are there issues pertaining to the Tribunal that are still pending with the government or other ministries concerned?
The biggest issue is non-availability of permanent accommodation for the Tribunal’s offices as well as its members. At present we are functioning from modified barracks at an interim location. Then there is the question of regular staff appointments. All members at present are retired judges or service officers.
Half the tribunal’s orders are being defied

Landmark Decision on Reservists Pension- AFT Implementation

Dear All,
There are eleven IAF Airmen who had gone to court for award of pension after they had completed more than 10 years and few days of service each which included regular, reserve and recalled period of service. They had gone to AFT with a plea that they should be awarded pension for their regular service and additional 6 years reserve, totalling more than 15 years which otherwise qualifies for pension for veterans in normal course. AFT gave decision in favour of all these veterans but it was not being implemented.
Air HQ has now conveyed the sanction of the President of India in terms of GOI, MOD, order No 4684/DIR(PEN)/2001 dated 14 August 2001 & 7 Nov 2001 to implement the court order dated 12 Jan 2011 in this case vide letter No Air HQ /41006/SP/363/PA(CC) dated 09 May 2011 asking PCDA (Pension) to issue corr PPO for arrears including 3 years preceding the date of filing the petition on 22 Jul 2009.This letter also mentions that it is issued with the concurrence of Finance Division of MOD vide U O note dated 13 Apr 2011.
Procedural details have also been circulated by AFRO vide their letter dated 23 May 2011 as a follow up asking each of these airman to submit some of the documents including joint photographs etc.
There are many more cases of reservists which are now required to be decided in their favour by this logic but not implemented. This particular case shows that Service HQ has the powers vested in them for implementation of such AFT orders and direct PCDA(P) to issue corr PPOs after completing other formalities.
I am organising a meet of such other airman who are based at Pune sometimes in third week of July 2011 to brief them on this decision and may be initiate their claims for pension.
I could not find both the letters mentioned by Air HQ as authority from the website of PCDA, Allahabad. I have now asked AFRO, New Delhi to send me copies. Once these are read & understood some further action can be taken.
Regards,
Gp Capt SS Phatak (Retd)
Head Pension Division of IESM, IAF Accounts, 1965-1994
Pune

Supreme Court raps center for filing frivilous appeals against the lowly and gutless to take on the IAS/ IPS Officers

The SC ticked off Centre for frequently filing appeals challenging issues relating to class IV employees.
New Delhi: Kumar Posted: Thu Jun 03 2010, 20:01 hrs
The Supreme Court on Thursday ticked off the Centre for frequently filing appeals challenging issues relating to class IV employees but not having the “guts” to take on IAS/IPS officers over such issues.

“Why do you come to us frequently against labourers, kalasis and chaprasis. Do you have the guts to take on IAS/ IPS officers? You keeping filing petitions against class IV employees but not against IAS/IPS officers. That’s because you don’t have the guts,” a bench of Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar remarked.

The apex court passed the observation while dismissing the Centre’s appeal challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court direction to appoint Jarnail Singh as a labourer in the Ministry of Defence.

According to Wasim Ahmed Quadri, the Centre’s counsel, though Singh was selected after an interview, he could not be appointed to the post for want of sanction as it was “time barred.” The counsel submitted that Singh was considered to the post on March 10, 1990, by the ministry, though the last date for appointment as per the rules was May 25, 1989.

Quadri submitted that the final appointment was subject to the condition that it would get the requisite sanction from the government. As the sanction could not be accorded, as it was time barred, he was not appointed.

Singh challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in favour of the Centre, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the government to appoint Singh to the post. The High Court noted that Singh was entitled for appointment as the selection process was conducted through the employment exchange. Aggrieved, the Centre appealed in the apex court. The apex court while upholding the high court’s direction said the “question of law” on the issue would, however, be kept open. In other words, the direction for appointment has been made on the facts of the present case but not as a general ruling.
You bring chaprasis to us, don’t have guts to take on babus: SC to Centre

Seize properties of corrupt govt officials, says CJI

12/09/2009
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan on Saturday favoured statutory provision for seizure of illegal properties and assets of government officials convicted in corruption cases.

He also wanted specialised teams of lawyers to ensure that they will progressively develop expertise in prosecuting corruption-related cases.

"If a public official amasses wealth at the cost of public, then the state is justified in seizing such assets," Balakrishnan said at a national seminar on 'Fighting Crimes related to Corruption´.

"One prominent suggestion is the inclusion of a statutory remedy that will enable confiscation of properties belonging to persons who are convicted of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)", the Chief Justice said.

The CJI said procedural delays like granting sanction and difficulty in marshalling large number of witnesses were the major hurdles in achieving meaningful convictions when the anti-corruption agencies was already finding it difficult to grapple with 9,000 pending cases due to shortage of designated courts.

"It is necessary (that) there should be a speedy manner of granting sanction. The prosecution becomes ineffective if the sanction is granted after 6-7 years," he said.

Balakrishnan expressed concern that CBI relies on large number of witnesses in the corruption cases instead of coming out with solid witnesses which unnecessary prolongs the trial of the case for 3 to 4 years. "Instead of having 8 to 10 witnesses, emphasis should be on having one solid witness to prove the case," he said.

However, dwelling on the PCA, the CJI said the foremost criticism of the law is that an investigating agency needs to obtain prior sanction from competent authority to initiate prosecution against a public servant which is delayed or denied by higher executive authorities.

"Even in instances where the investigating agencies have gathered substantial material to proceed against a person, it is felt that the necessary sanction is not given on account of extraneous considerations," he said.

Expressing concern that the country did not have an effective prosecuting agency, the CJI said there was a need for separation of prosecution function from the investigating functions of the CBI which has been a controversial issue.

"I understand that there has been considerable resistance to this suggestion, since investigating officers and prosecution lawyers need to work in close co-ordination.

"The real problem here is that CBI has been relying on government law officers and standing counsels to conduct the prosecutions whereas there is a need for retaining a regular team of lawyers which will progressively develop expertise in prosecuting corruption-related cases," Balakrishnan said.

He said, "having a specialised team of lawyers will also ensure that they thoroughly scrutinise the investigators' efforts in evidence-gathering, thereby improving the presentation of cases.
Source: PTI
Seize properties of corrupt govt officials, says CJI

President Inaugurates Armed Forces Tribunal

Saturday, August 08, 2009 15:25 IST
The President Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil inaugurated the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) here today. Calling it an important milestone in the history of the Armed Forces, the President, who is also the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, hoped that the setting up of the Tribunal will enhance the confidence and trust among the large number of Services personnel in the country’s justice dispensation system in relation to their service matters. It has been a longstanding demand of the men in uniform to have the option for a review of decisions of the Court Martial.

Cautioning that the delay in dispensation of justice defeats the very purpose of delivery of justice, the President asked the Tribunal to be particularly careful in avoiding the build up of backlogs. “There should be predictability in court hearings and adjournments granted only in very exceptional circumstances,” she added.

Set up by an Act of Parliament in December, 2007, the AFT will have its Principal Bench in New Delhi and eight regional benches spread across the country. The Tribunal will have 15 courts in all, - three each in New Delhi, Chandigarh and Lucknow and one each in Jaipur, Mumbai, Kolkata, Guwahati, Chennai and Kochi. The Principal bench in New Delhi will be functional from Monday, August 10.

Terming the landmark event as a ‘magna carta’ in Indian military history, the Minister for Law and Justice, Shri M. Veerappa Moily said that the Tribunal would act as an outlet for redressal of grievances of Armed Forces personnel. The Tribunal is an endeavour in “the search for truth and justice” after the convergence of various pillars of democracy, Shri Moily said. He hoped that the Tribunal would not get bogged down in “the juggernaut of bureaucracy.” Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur, who took over as the founder Chairperson of the Tribunal on Sep.1, 2008, said the arrears of pending cases in civilian courts is a matter of concern. He hoped that the Tribunal would reduce burden on the regular courts. At present nearly 10,000 such cases are pending before various courts across the country, most of them with the high courts.

The AFT will provide a judicial forum for redressal of grievances of about a 1.3 million strong armed forces personnel and another 1.2 million Ex-Servicemen. Having powers of a criminal court, the Tribunal can grant bail to men held in military custody and also hear appeals against sentences handed down by the court-martial. The decisions of the AFT can be challenged only in the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal will provide better justice delivery system to the Services personnel, particularly those living in remote and inaccessible areas, the Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice KG Balakrishnan said. Pointing out that the Army, Navy and the Air Force Acts have some archaic and “authoritative” provisions of the colonial legacy, he observed that there was a general perception that sitting officers of the Court Martial are not inclined to impartial and fair justice. The Tribunal’s success parameters would be to ensure fairness, speedy justice and its enforcement, he added.

The Defence Minister Shri AK Antony said that the tribunal fills a void that existed in the military justice dispensation. It would fulfill the observations made by the Supreme Court long back in 1982 and the subsequent recommendations of the Law Commission that “the Services personnel must have at least one judicial review” of verdicts handed down by the Court Martial.

The Tribunal will have a Chairperson who has been or is a judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of a high court. Besides, each court consists of a judicial member and an administrative member. Justice RV Ravindran, a sitting Supreme Court judge who is the Chairperson of the Selection Committee of the Armed Forces Tribunal, said that the decision making on grievances related to armed forces personnel demands specialized knowledge of Services protocol besides upholding the tenets of natural justice.

Delivering the closing address, the Minister of State for Defence Dr MM Pallam Raju said that this day heralds a new era in the administration of justice for the armed forces personnel.
DM/PK/HH
President Inaugurates Armed Forces Tribunal

PBOR denied justice: The endless litigation endures

Dear Brig Kamboj,
May I request you to put the following in "REPORT MY SIGNALS" blog to show to the readers apathy on the part of our serving officers and the COAS concerning PBOR:

"A Havildar filed a writ petition in 1990 in the Delhi High Court wherein he challenged the ACR of 1987 (wherein he was graded "High Average") on the ground that the same could not be considered for his promotion to Naib Subedar as he had not completed 90 days under the IO. The last five ACRs considered were of 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. In these five ACRs he had two "Above Average" and three "High Average" reports. In 1984 ACR as well as in 1990 ACR the Havildar had been graded "Above Average". San 1987 A.C.R. the Havildar met the criteria of "Three Above Average and Two High Average reports" in the last five years whether the 1984 or the 1990 report is considered.

In reply, with a view to prove that the NCO did put in 90 days under the I.O., the Record Officer forged the entry relating to the "Period of Service" under the I.O. and produced the ACR in the Court. However, the High Court found the entry relating the period of service under the I.O. had been tampered/ forged. The writ petition was admitted on this ground alone way back in 1990.

The writ was finally decided in November 2008 in favour of the NCO. The High Court held that the "period of service" in 1987 report was in fact tampered and struck down the 1987 ACR. The High Court directed the COAS and others to reconsider the Havildar for promotion to Naib Subedar in 1990 sans the 1987 report.

However, the COAS instead of considering either of 1984 or 1990 report (both "Above Average") chose to consider 1983 report (a "High Average Report") just to deny the promotion to the NCO! What will be the result? Another writ petition will have to be filed. This is how the Courts get flooded with avoidable litigation.

I ask myself a question "can an NCO afford to file yet another writ petition" and more importantly, the earlier case having taken 19 years to decide, can he wait or even live till he gets justice.

While we criticize the Government for its apathy, is there no apathy nearer home? Was the COAS not obliged to proceed against the forger of the ACR entry (Record Officer) and punish him for his misdemeanour? Was he not required to do justice by considering 1984 report? Why did he choose 1983 report when it did not fall within the "Last Five Years" by any standard? Was it just to deny a promotion to a poor Havildar? It is time we carry out introspection.
Lt Col MG Kapoor, Veteran
Practicing Law in Delhi High Court

Moily says more than 2.6 crore cases pending in subordinate courts

Moily says more than 2.6 crore cases pending in subordinate courts
Mon, Jul 13 09:40 PM
New Delhi, July 13(ANI): Union Minister of Law and Justice, Veerappa Moily, on Monday said that more than 2.6 crore cases were pending in the subordinate courts and over 39 lakh cases were pending in high courts across the country.

"As per the reports received from the Registries of the High Courts, 39,10,858 cases were pending in the High Courts and 2,66,50,467 cases were pending in the Subordinate Courts as on December 31, 2008," Moily said.

Moily also said that according to information received from the Registry of the Supreme Court, 50,659 matters (31,363 admission matters and 19,296 regular hearing matters) were pending in the Supreme Court as on 1st June 2009.

He further added that government has taken several measures to smooth the progress of cases in courts.

Earlier, government had introduced 'Fast Track Courts' to speed up trials in various courts. About 25.07 lakh cases have been disposed of by these courts out of 31.01 lakh cases transferred to them, Moily said.

The minister also informed that the government periodically monitors the strength of judges in high courts and ensures timely filing up of vacancies so that courts does not undergo scarcity of judges.

Moily emphasised that on the basis of reviews, the strength of judges in the Supreme Court has been increased from 26 to 31 and 163 posts of judges have been created in various high courts. (ANI)
Moily says more than 2.6 crore cases pending in subordinate courts

Comment: Will Justice ever be meted out to criminals of our Nation?

DoPT gains some sanity?

Friday, July 10, 2009
DoPT regains some sanity – asks all Ministries to disclose file notings under RTI Act
Well, the threat of strong action under the Indian Penal Code by the Central Information Commission (CIC) against two officers of the DoPT has had the desired effect. DoPT has officially issued a circular to all Ministries and Departments that file notings have to be disclosed under the RTI Act.

The action came against the backdrop of serious vacillation on the part of the DoPT to correct contents of its website wherein it was stated that ‘file notings’ were not a part of the definition of ‘information’ under the RTI Act. Despite various decisions by the Central Information Commission declaring file notings disclosable under the Act, the DoPT did not amend the web material. In fact, even in the face of specific directions to remove the offending portion from its portal, the department failed to act in the matter fully knowing that as per the RTI Act, CIC decisions are binding on public authorities.

Some officers suggest that disclosure of file notings and minute sheets would lay open to scrutiny their decisions in tough public matters, not realising that transparency is much more important in public life than secrecy of identity. Moreover, officers taking decision as per law with proper application of mind have nothing to be afraid of. File notings have an important role to play in public administration – it is these notings which bring to light the logic or reasons behind administrative decisions and matters of public policy, it is these notings which disclose whether a particular public authority acted in a bonafide manner or was misled into taking a particular action by someone in the channel leading to the particular final policy decision. File notings also assist Hon’ble Courts of Law under the writ jurisdiction since the rationale and motives behind objectives sought to be achieved through public policies and decisions are disclosed and laid bare, which is good for any democracy, especially where public servants (masters ?) tend to hide behind a thick veil of official secrecy.
Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh at 5:08 AM
Ministry of Personnel, Grievances and Pensions

As reported by Aloke Tikku and Chetan Chauhan in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 29 December 2008:
Why babus won?t reveal file notings- Hindustan Times
In a move that can strike a dent to the purpose of Right to Information Act (RTI) in the country, bureaucracy is averse to reveal official file notings that contain the discussions on the subject under consideration before the government.

The bureaucracy points to the instructions from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) — which comes directly under the Prime Minister — to keep the file notings under wraps. This decision will have a negative impact on the RTI purpose. Because making official notings public would have helped fix the trail of responsibility and accountability within the government.

The bureaucracy had tried to draw an iron curtain over this part of the file. The government, however, hasn't given up. A DoPT circular on April 10, 2008 noted CIC rulings that file notings was an integral part of a file and should be disclosed. “Applications seeking copies of the file notings may be disposed of as per clarification given on the website,” the circular issued by DoPT deputy secretary, Zoya CB, said.

Exasperated CIC Wajahat Habibullah said: “The DoPT view is illegal according to the RTI Act.” He told HT that the commission has asked DoPT to remove illegal definition of information from DoPT website.

DoPT's website had defined the information as all information except file notings. All Central government ministries had been following DoPT's version of information, and thereby denying file notings.

Habibullah said if the DoPT fails to comply with its direction, a penal action could be taken against the government official responsible for complying with the order.

On the DoPT’s order to different Central government ministries that file notings are not be provided unless the CIC issues a specific order, Habibullah said the issues will be resolved once the DoPT corrects its definition of information on its website.
Dept of Personnel and Training violating RTI Act: CIC

Tail Piece
Bureaucrats are white shepherds guarding the black sheep. Bureaucratic and Political terrorists are more dangerous than foreign terrorists who strike randomly whereas the former destroy our own social fabric slowly and surely.

Change laws, strengthen judiciary to clear backlog: Prez

Huge backlog of cases in the courts is a major issue and the solution lies in changing laws and strengthening judicial institutions, President Pratibha Patil said in Uttan today.

"One of the major issues confronting the judiciary is the huge backlog of cases... Cases have taken inordinately long time to come to conclusion and litigants have not been able to lead normal life unsure of the verdict in their case," she said.

The President was inaugurating Maharashtra Judicial Academy in Uttan. She said solution should be found for those waiting for justice since long and added, "this could include revising many of our legal codes and laws which are old and outdated as well as strengthening institutional aspects of judiciary."

Addressing the audience which included Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Swatanter Kumar and several High Court judges, she said, "Cost of access to justice has become high and expensive whether it is in terms of court fees or lawyers' fees. This has given rise to worrisome doubt about access to justice especially for the weaker sections of society."

"It should be our bounden duty to ensure that justice was accessible to all," Patil said, adding that options like mobile courts for remote areas, wide network of legal assistance for the poor and predictable schedule of hearings can be useful in tackling the issue. (ST-27/06)
Change laws, strengthen judiciary to clear backlog: Prez

Huge case backlog clogs India's courts By Neeta Lal
DELHI - India's woefully underfunded court system, with its shortfall of judges but excess of corrupt lawyers, is also saddled with a gargantuan backlog of 29.2 million cases pending across hundreds of subordinate state-level courts, 21 high courts and the Supreme Court.

According to figures released recently by the Indian Supreme Court- the country's highest judicial authority- out of this mind-boggling number, over 25.4 million cases are pending in subordinate courts, 3.7 million cases in various high courts while the Supreme Court is stuck with 45,887 cases awaiting justice.
Full article at: Huge backlog clogs India's courts

Points to Ponder
Can the India's Courts ever deliver justice without delay?....the backlog alone will take another 100 years to clear....still there are cases which are alive and kicking after 400 years....Justice and Judgement pending for four centuries!

Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal appointed

Monday, June 22, 2009 Ministry of Defence
The Government has approved the appointment of following as Judicial and Administrative Members in the Armed Forces Tribunal (Principal Bench and Various Regional Benches), in scale of pay Rs. 26,000/- (fixed) (pre revised), for a period of 4 years from the date of assumption of the post or till the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.

Judicial Members
1. Mr. Justice Janardan Sahai
2. Mr. Justice K Padmanabhan Nair (Retd)
3. Mr. Justice Shilendra Shanker Kulshrestha (Retd)
4. Mr. Justice Ghanshyam Prasad (Retd)
5. Mr. Justice Manak Lall Mohta
6. Mr. Justice AC Arumugaperumal Adityan
7. Mr. Justice Anwar Ahmad (Retd)
8. Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan

Administrative Members
1. Lt. Gen (Retd) S Pattabhiraman
2. Lt. Gen (Retd) Amrik Singh Bahia
3. Lt. Gen (Retd) Madan Gopal
4. Lt. Gen (Retd) Susheel Gupta
5. Lt. Gen (Retd) M L Naidu
6. Lt. Gen (Retd) HS Panag
7. Lt. Gen ( Retd) Thomas Mathew
8. Lt. Gen ( Retd) PR Gangadharan
9. Lt. Gen ( Retd) SS Dhillon
10. Lt. Gen (Retd) ZU Shah
11. Lt. Gen (Retd) RK Chhabra
12. Lt. Gen (Retd) NS Brar
13. Vice Adm (Retd) RF Contractor
14. Lt. Gen (Retd) BS Sisodia
15. Commodore (Retd) Mohan Phadke

The Union Cabinet gave its approval for the creation of 31 posts for the Armed Forces Tribunal on June 24, 2008 paving the way for the creation of the proposed independent adjudicating forum for dispensing cost effective and speedy justice to the armed forces personnel. The posts include 1 of Chairperson and 29 posts of members for the Principal Bench at New Delhi and 8 Regional Branches. It also includes one post of Principal Registrar at the Principal Bench.

The Principal Bench at New Delhi will have three courts and will have jurisdiction over High Courts in the State of Delhi. Similarly, the Chandigarh and Lucknow Benches will have 3 courts each. The Chandigarh Bench will have jurisdiction over Punjab, Haryana, J&K and Himachal Pradesh. The Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh. The other locations for the Benches with one court each will be Kolkata, Guwahati, Mumbai, Kochi, Chennai and Jaipur. The Kolkata Bench will have jurisdiction over West Bengal, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The Guwahati Bench will have jurisdiction over Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The Mumbai Bench will have jurisdiction over Maharashtra, Goa and Gujarat. While Kochi Bench will have jurisdiction over Kerala and Karnataka, Chennai Bench will look after Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The Jaipur Bench will have jurisdiction over Rajasthan.

The setting up of the Armed Forces Tribunal has fulfilled a long-felt need of the country’s three defence services. Over 9,800 cases filed by Service personnel are pending before various High Courts. The maximum number of cases numbering 2487 will be transferred to the Chandigarh Bench while 2407 will be adjudicated by the Lucknow Bench. Two thousand three hundred and six (2,306) cases are proposed to be transferred to the Delhi Principal Bench.

The Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 which was passed by the Parliament during the Winter Session of 2007 received the assent of the President on 25th December, 2007. The Act was notified on 28th December, 2007. It provides for adjudication or trial by the tribunal of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolment and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to Three Services Acts as also for appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of court martial held under the said Acts and for matters connected with them. The Act came into force with effect from 15th June, 2008. The Tribunal will have original jurisdiction in service matters and appellate jurisdiction in court martial matters. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur was appointed as the Chairman of the Tribunal. The Tribunal will consist of 1 Chairperson, 14 judicial and 15 administrative members. The administrative members shall be officer of the rank of Major General or above in the Army or equivalent rank in the Navy or the Air Force with three years of service in that rank. JAG of three Services with at least one year of service as JAG shall also be eligible. The judicial member should be serving or retired judge of the High Court. All appointments to the Tribunal are made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Tribunal has powers to punish for its contempt.
****
Samir / RAJ
Members of the Armed Forces Tribunal appointed

Comment: JAG branch needs to be streamlined and its officers impove their professional skills to ensure the system is just and free from influence and corruption.